Advanced Search Results

California Vs. Southern Pacific Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

a suit in 1857 between the City of Oakland and Carpentier were also put in evidence; also, a sheriff's deed to one Watson, dated April 24, 1856, purporting to convey the waterfront; also, tax deed dated October … and to provide for the construction of wharves thereat," approved May 4, 1852 (a copy of which act was annexed to the amended bill, and … the board on May 27, 1852. This ordinance granted, in its first section, to Horace W. Carpentier and his legal representatives, for the period of … 5, 1894. The amended bill averred that the State of California was admitted into the Union under an Act of Congress approved September 9, 1850, with certain specified boundaries, and it was alleged that said boundaries embraced … assumed. The area of the seven tracts embraced 838 acres. It was stipulated that the Central Pacific

State of Maharashtra Vs. Kusum Charudutt Bharma Upadhye

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Reported in : (1981)83BOMLR75; 1981MhLJ93

to be kept by the officers, and also to settle Tables of Fees to be allowed to the Sheriff, Attorneys, and all Clerks and Officers of Courts, and from Time to Time to alter any such Rule … Legislature and set up Legislative Councils which included some Judges.32. From about 1852 the Parliamentary Committee for East Indian affairs was considering a proposal to … reason of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 38 of the Interpretation Act, 1889, which corresponds to Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 what CM me to be excluded from the right of appeal conferred

Umaji Keshao Meshram and ors. Vs. Radhikabai, Widow of Anandrao Banapu ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 100A, 104, 122, 125 and 141 - Order 43, Rule 1; Constitution of India - Articles 1, 1(2), 2, 3, 11, 32, 132, 145, 145(1), 145(2), 147, 214, 214(2), 215, 225, 226, 227, 228, 230, 366, 367(1), 372, 372(1), 394 and 395; Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 - Rule 18; General Clauses Act, 1897 - Sections 8; Interpretation Act, 1889 - Sections 38(1); Government of India Act, 1915 - Sections 106(1), 107, 108 and 130; Government of India Act, 1935 - Sections 223

Reported in : AIR1986SC1272; (1986)88BOMLR432; 1986(1)SCALE681; 1986Supp(1)SCC401; [1986]1SCR731; 1986(2)LC319(SC)

of any such courts.(3) The High Courts may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein:Provided that any … up a Legislative Council which was to include some Judges.55. From about 1852 the Parliamentary Committee for East Indian affairs was considering a proposal to … reason of the provisions of Section 38(1) of the Interpretation Act (52 & 53 Vict., c. 63) and Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and on well-established principles of interpretation of statutes the words 'the power

Palmer Vs. Low

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

to the form of the grant. There can arise here no question as to the payment of municipal fees or the delivery of the grant, for the bill of exceptions shows that the court below found as … of the premises in controversy, without title, about the year 1851 or 1852, and they and the plaintiff continued in the exclusive and adverse possession … May, 1867, when the grantor of the defendant, S. O. Houghton, was placed in possession thereof by the Sheriff of the City and County of San Francisco, under legal process issued in the case of Donner v. … THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus This was an action of ejectment, commenced April 30, 1872, by Daniel Palmer, the plaintiff in … Ness Page 98 U. S. 2 Ordinance, the sections of which material to the present controversy are … exclusive and adverse possession thereof down to the 8th of May, 1867, when the grantor of the

Kilachand Devchand and Co. Vs. Ajodhyaprasad Sukhanand

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Contempt of Court

Reported in : AIR1934Bom452; (1934)36BOMLR992

notice of motion. A notice of motion shall be in Form No. 8 with such variations as circumstances may require. Where special leave to serve … service it is pointed out that, under the High Court Rules, all processes should be served by the Sheriff or his bailiffs. The only authority given to the attorneys' clerk to effect service is in respect of … under the circumstances it is obligatory on the party who applies to the Court to state the precise acts complained of in the notice of motion. It is not permissible not to mention those particulars in the … motion of this kind would be an order within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Civil Procedure Code and could, therefore, be executed under

Schilb Vs. Kuebel

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

in the giving of bail. It is designed to permit the continuation of present practices in regard to sheriffs, police officers, etc., taking cash bail or drivers' licenses, and to simplify the procedures in all other cases … all criminal defendants against whom the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois, had assessed fees of 10% of the amounts deposited as bail bonds. At issue was Ill.Ann.Stat., c. 38, § 100-7(a) (1970), … 1% of the bail (amounting to $7.50) was refunded. In this class action, he thereafter challenged the Illinois system on due process and equal protection … any amount. In each case, bail is fixed by a judicial officer. Section 115 prescribes factors to be considered in fixing the amount of bail. … v. Ingram, 34 Ill.2d 623, 626, 217 N.E.2d 803, 805 (1966). Payment of this substantial "premium" was

Sita Nath Basak Vs. Mohini Mohan Singh and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Reported in : AIR1924Cal595

1826, and Bell v. Whitehead (1839) 3 Jur. 68, decided in 1839.8. We are not unmindful that in Sheriff v. Coates (1830) 1 Russ. And My. 159 Lord Lyndhurst, L.C., observed that as the case then before … Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (3) Is the suit bad for misjoinder of causes of action? (4) Is the suit against public policy? (5) Has the defendant infringed the copyright of the plaintiff? (6) … 23rd December, 1921. It may be noted at this stage that under Section 13 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1914, every suit or other civil